tv Bloomberg Surveillance 2017 Year Ahead Bloomberg January 1, 2017 7:00pm-8:01pm EST
♪ tom: there is no question america and the world have changed this 2016. the new year brings president trump and radical change to washington. nothing will change for janet yellen. the chair, well, they are ultra-accommodative, and the fed must right size amid trump reflation and go to cash. ok, here is the truth, folks. i went to cash. i and many others have seller's remorse. for this entire hour, abby joseph cohen from goldman sachs,
we look at 2017 through the prism and synthesis of economics, finance, investment, and of course international , relations. but really with the perspective , of decades that abby joseph cohen has brought to all of investment. we say good evening, good morning, good afternoon to you, wherever you are, worldwide. it is a "bloomberg surveillance" year-end special. i'm tom keene from our world headquarters in new york. let's get right into it with abby joseph cohen, senior investment strategist at goldman sachs. but that barely describes her commitment to the education of those within the investment community. her work at the cfa institute, her work for years with goldman sachs. what is the difference between what you do and what david kosten does everyday at goldman sachs? abby: tom, first of all, i'm delighted to be here with you. tom: for the whole hour. that is great. abby: absolutely. for the year-end retrospective and a look ahead into the new year.
i spend most of my time thinking about the intermediate to long-term outlook. david and many of my other colleagues at goldman sachs really focus in shorter term. because we are trying to be helpful to our clients, and many of our clients do need that regular, hourly, daily update. i try to step away and work with our longer-term horizon clients, including individuals, endowments, sovereign wealth funds, and so on. tom: many people watching the this show looking into 2017 are huge abby joseph cohen fans. they are like, she is always bullish. and you and i know that is not true, but the idea of a permeable, for starters, you look brilliant into this year. you look brilliant last year. you look brilliant into a seven or eight year market. can you be brilliant and be a permabull for next year? or is there more caution? abby: i think it is going to be more difficult in 2017 because
there are so many unknowns. you know 2016 turned out to be a good year for the economy. and that was the basis for being optimistic about the equity market in 2016. economy growing, profits increasing, labor markets stabilizing, wages beginning to rise, that's a great combination for the equity market. in 2017, the base will be good because we will be entering the year with an economy that is performing well. the real question surrounds policy, a new administration, and quite frankly, there are so many unknowns that we will be adjusting views as the year goes on based upon changes in policy. tom: in historic perspective, place us in historic perspective, the bull market we lived since early 2009. abby: we have actually had two bull markets.
one, of course, has been the equity bull market that began in earnest in the springtime of 2009. after the financial crisis was calming down, we began to see a very significant rise in equity prices, by most accounts a tripling of those prices, but we have also had a multi-decade bull market in bonds. and i think that bull market in bonds is now over. and so much of what investors need to think about, business people and so on, is what are the implications of having hit the bottom of inflation, having hit the bottom of interest rates, and how do we adjust for that? tom: this is critical. now this is where you can really add value. the idea that i say equities, bonds, currencies, commodities, there is that relationship between equities and bonds. let's suggest that it was broken in the great distortion. are we back to equities and bonds in sync yet? abby: not yet. when we apply valuation models to fixed income, what we find is
that despite the rising yields since the election, those yields are probably still too low. so for example on a fair value , basis, we would expect the 10-year bond yield, which was 1.7 before the election, we expect that to march from roughly 2.4 in december, perhaps to 2.7 in the coming months. to fair valueback on fixed income. let me point out, when we do the equity valuation work, we are not using the the unsustainably low interest rates. we are using yields that we expect will occur. tom: this is a critical point. you plug in what you think rates are going to do, and you don't use the clearly present distortion that we are in now. abby: because if you believe that yields are going higher and that the mathematics tell you the higher the yield, the more of a problem that is for equity valuation, we are trying to make
exercise a little more difficult, and even when we do, the conclusion is that equities have value. tom: you and i have witnessed any number of bond bear markets. remember the old days, you had the standard & poor's bluebook and your grandfather showed you boise cascade bonds with a 4% coupon? those days are gone. but what is unchanged is that everybody goes yield, yield, yield. yields go up, price goes down, and all of a sudden, its price, it's price, price, price on bonds. are we anywhere near the definition of a bond bear market where people see significant price erosion? abby: i believe that has already begun. we have certainly seen that in treasuries and other high-quality bonds where we have seen more price decline than we have seen in say corporate bonds, because corporate bonds had a margin built-in, if you will. tom: coming up, abby joseph cohen on chair yellen, the federal reserve system, and we will look at the central banks around the world, with a
♪ ms. yellen: it is critically important that a central bank have the ability to make judgments about how best to pursue those goals while being accountable for explaining its decisions and transparent in its decision-making. tom: maybe not the statement of 2016, but there is chair yellen way out in front of what will be the statement of 2017 and 2018. we welcome you back, our
"bloomberg surveillance" year-end special. i'm tom keene from new york. and with me, of course, abby joseph cohen, senior investment advisor to goldman sachs. that was the perfect moment to capture of janet yellen in 2016. here,want to jump ahead maybe to the end of her term, to a new fed chairman in this massive battle to come over rules and discretion. john b taylor, stanford university, alan greenspan on the other side talking about discretion. where are you on rules and discretion and the efficacy of that strategy for any given central bank? abby: the word i think that is tom, isitical, fed independence. i think that, to look ahead to 2017, one of the big political footballs may prove to be the independence of the fed, which i think must be sacrosanct in this country. now when we talk about something
like the taylor rule and so on, i think it is a good starting point. the fed obviously uses many different mathematical models to try to determine where they want to be, where they think interest rates will be, but the taylor rule by itself is just one tool, in my view, in the larger tool bag. tom: are the checks and balances within the washington system to give us william mcchesney martin's miracle of 1951. you served with a very independent, relatively independent fed 25 years on. we want to drive that forward, everyone agrees with you, are the checks and balances to push back the mood of so much support of the president? abby: i think it's important that it not be just the president, but also the congress that acknowledge that the fed should be independent. when the federal reserve chair comes and gives testimony before congress, it's important that that be an open dialogue, rather than the chair being berated for
things that may or may not come under fed control. tom: you asked piercing questions at the economic club of new york this year, and as always, there was theotion of vicehairman fisher coining that phrase "ultra accommodative." how many rate rises will we need? how distant are we from neutral or even how distant are we from a restrictive fed? abby: i think we still have quite a ways to go before we have restrictive monetary policy. keep in mind that the united states in our view will be moving forward with policy rate increases, but what we have already seen is that the intermediate long yields that get controlled by market participants have already moved higher, the yield curve has steepened. it is an indication that investors are not just looking at demand for these funds, but also in terms of the inflation
outlook and so on. when we talk about ultra -accommodative, the story isn't really the fed. it is really the european central bank, the boj, and others that continue to follow negative interest rates. tom: as you know so well, the idea in working with the cfa institute and just simply the day-to-day grind at goldman sachs, there's nothing like the manufacture of a chart to intuitively understand those timeseries. there is something about a pencil or a bloomberg terminal, my 2017 shameless plug for the bloomberg terminal. there. the fact is you put the chart together and it works. for me, it was balance sheet of a given fed to gdp. japan is out of control with the expansion of their balance sheet. but the real surprise is europe and the ecb. tell me about the pressures on mr. draghi next year to right size his ecb. abby: mr. draghi has a problem that we see in terms of other
central banks as well, and that is fiscal policy has been asleep, and it has been largely inactive for most of the period since the financial crisis. we have seen more stimulus in the united states, 2009, 2010, than was the case elsewhere, especially in europe, where they had the constraints that were very considerable in terms of deficit relative to gdp. so when we talk about mr. draghi , we talk about other central banks, let's not do it in a vacuum. let's recognize that we have asked central banks around the world to do way too much. and that is because fiscal policy largely has been absent. tom: right. abby: in 2017, the ecb is going to be looking not just a interest rate policy, but also in terms of their approach to qe, quantitative ease. and what mr. draghi said recently is that he doesn't plan to taper anytime soon.
but what we have to keep in mind is that this is not a long-term opportunity. tom: the arch question here, and this goes back to your work with the cfa institute, the late cfter bernstein's work with the institute, in conversations with deutsche bank and his work with all of the other research that pulls in history, what is the fragility of the european financial experiment into next year? what is your measurement of how europe gets to 2018 or even how it gets to 2019? abby: we have to recognize that europe is facing notable structural impediments to growth. if we take a look at the potential growth rate of most european economies, take the average, it is just about 1%. tom: is that euro sclerosis? sclerosis.is euro
that has been in place for several decades. we see an extremely low growth rate. if you don't have labor force growth, you don't have economic growth. we see productivity gains have been anemic. so when we take a look at europe, they really are struggling very hard against their structural problems. monetary policy does not address structural issues. fiscal policy does, regulatory policy, trade policies, not monetary policy. tom: i want to make sure we get this in for this important year-end show, if we get the rate rise you were talking about, the reflation that is assumed quickly here, rates rise in japan, and yet that has been the multi-decade fear, hasn't it? where's the tipping point for japan if rates rise? abby: the tipping point for japan has shifted. interestingly, it's because they have been trying desperately to get inflation up. when we talk about rates, we often talk about nominal interest rates and we don't adjust for inflation. one of the big problems in japan has been ongoing deflation. as prices begin to move somewhat higher in japan, they can tolerate higher interest rates. and we think that in japan, we
are seeing benefits not just from monetary policy, but from what has been referred to as abenomics. for the last year or so, we are seeing some structural reform in japan, and these are progrowth reforms. tom: we will come back on this, . it fits perfectly to a conversation, of course, on president trump and the reflation of our markets. stay with us. ♪
the economy and in the labor market as much as men do, you have a more diversified economy. and by bringing women to the labor market, giving them access to finance, you reduce the inequality. tom: good morning, everyone. madame lagarde, an extraordinary conversation. i will get to that in a moment. this is our "bloomberg surveillance," a special. i am tom keene. christine lagarde is speaking with john micklethwait. early december, maybe late november, it's a wonderful moment, christi lagarde with her new tenure at the international monetary fund, really addresses women within finance, within investment, and frankly, within our world economy. that's a good topic to speak to abby joseph cohen. goldman sachs, senior investment strategist.
i go back, i think about your tenure at the fed years ago. what was your first day like? do they go, what is she doing here? abby: it was actually wonderful. , tom. i was hired by the director of research, who, during the recruitment process, specifically said to me, i have three daughters. tom: oh, that's a start. abby: i want to make sure women at drexel have every opportunity to succeed. tom: we see it with madame lagarde or frankly madame joseph cohen. my perception of it is not so much that women work harder, but work smarter towards that marginal effort to gain on wall street. where are we within the investment firms right now? are the women outdoing the men? abby: well, i do have to disagree with you, tom. i do think women work harder. tom: yeah. abby: they are often better prepared and we basically find women are succeeding most in
categories that are easily measured, so whether it is investment research or portfolio management, where there are numbers that can measure performance, we see that women are doing quite well. one of the concerns we have had has been that we lost a whole cadre of people, if i can use that expression, post financial crisis. so many of the young people, male and female, who came to wall street in the period preceding lost their jobs or decided to leave the industry. and so we are missing some of those people who should now be moving into important middle-management positions. fullhow do you respond -- disclosure, you worked with cornell afterwards -- how do you respond to the lecture you give to parents who picked up the zeitgeist of 2017 -- stem, stem, stem, stem, stem. my experience is that that doesn't work, but you have to have the broader education as well. lecture at goldman
sachs to the interns, new employees, what do you say on that? abby: i would be saying the same thing that you are. stem should not be viewed first of all, as an independent area. this economy will move forward when stem gets incorporated into the things that we do. so for example, about a third of the workforce at goldman sachs are people who are technologists. um, and i believe that in almost any field right now, people who have the background in math, who understand what computers can do, and so on, really have an advantage, but that's not all. one of the things i really do worry about is the way we have devalued liberal arts. um, think of liberal arts as literature, history, learning to think in different ways. tom: right. abby: so we need the analytical skill of stem, but we also need the more qualitative approach. that can move out of the paradigm more easily from liberal arts. tom: what you have done with your work for decades -- i tried
to do that on "bloomberg surveillance" -- is to pull history into our finance analysis. nobody does that. anymore. it's important to understand the nuances and distinctions of 1907 versus 1929 versus 1937 and on. i see it coming back. i'm optimistic about a new history. abby: i think you are correct. but let's be careful how we describe this. with the power of the data systems that we have, including the bloomberg terminals on our desks, all of our people, experienced and the younger people can say, ah, look what happened in 1942. but what is often missing is the understanding of why it happened. and sometimes, the data alone don't tell the full story. so to your point, it's the understanding of political economy, not just quantitative economics that i think will make a big difference. ,om: one of the lessons quickl
quickly, that i learned from is when you see people advance. i have always followed people's careers. it has given me confidence as well. the woman working at the evil empire known as morgan stanley goes out to google, and i believe transforms google. suddenly there is this woman going across industries and having a profound effect. abby: she was also involved in the community. both you and i are engaged in the economic club of new york, an important forum for conversation about economics. conversation about the economy and business in history, and looking forward. and ruth served as vice chair of that organization. tom: this is a wonderful follow on conversation to what we saw from madame lagarde a few weeks ago. we have to go now. we could have spent the entire hour with abby joseph cohen speaking about the tumult of 2016. that shocking night -- not
♪ donald trump: we are representative, to a large extent, of what is happening in the world. the world is looking up to us, but they haven't been looking up to us much. and they are going to start looking up again. we will be good for the world, not just good for our country. tom: he will be president trump, and it will be an extraordinary four years by any analysis or definition. we welcome you back to our "bloomberg surveillance" year ahead special. i am tom keene, and of course with me, abby joseph cohen, of goldman sachs senior investment
-- of goldman sachs. very generous in giving us the entire hour. she is there senior investment strategist. you and i could go, i am thinking, four or five hours on the impact of this election. what was your thought election night? abby: election night, like many people, i was surprised by the result. clearly this big gap between the popular vote, which mrs. clinton won probably by 2.7 million, versus the electoral college, is something that i think helped confuse the polling that was done before the election. after the election, we obviously have to do our analysis about what is the impact going to be, and i think that much of the rise in stock prices early on was related to people selling their treasury securities, recognizing that we were likely to see whether mr. trump was elected or not, a rise in inflation and interest rates. and so the movement out of fixed income into equities, and many of the equities that have
performed well have been in industries that likely benefit from a lighter regulatory touch. financial services, health care, and let's call it some of the -- i was going to say energy producers, but we will call them the polluters because there are some other companies in there as well. what we are seeing towards year-end towards 2016 is much more interesting. it is a rotation towards those companies that benefit from ongoing economic growth, the so-called reflation trade. economy continues to grow, cyclical stocks do well, commodity stocks do well, and all of this is internally consistent within the market. tom: there are eight ways to go here, and as we look a year ahead, 2017, the arch question for all of our viewers and listeners of all walks of life is, do we shift the distribution
of gains within the american society? are you -- i know you are a -- optimistic about the markets. i know you are optimistic that we will move forward, but will we move forward for 25% of america, or can we begin to shift the inequality? lagarde mentioned a few days ago, a few weeks ago rather here at bloomberg can we shift our , gene coefficient? abby: that is a great way to talk about it if you are an economist. if you are not an economist, i would encourage people to read two books, both of which are 400-year histories -- it is in their subtitle. one has to do with the frustrating lack of social and economic mobility for people mainly in the rural areas of the united states. i don't mean to offend anybody. it is not my title. but the name of this book -- tom: but you grew up in rural new york. queens. abby: i did grow up in rural new york, right near queens farm, by the way. and that book is called "white
trash." there is a second book that is called "city of dreams" which also has a subtitle of a 400-year history, but this is the 400-year epic history of immigrants in new york. and the contrast between the two books is phenomenal because groups of people, both urban and rural, are fighting discrimination. they come with less education. they come with reduced economic opportunity. and you see that in the cities of the united states, people have done better because the educational systems are better, job creation is better, and so on. so to try to answer the question about what happens next, let's talk about it structurally and cyclically. cyclically, we are much better now than we were two years ago, four years ago, eight years ago. job creation is there, wages are rising. structurally, we haven't really
done the job. we are not investing more in education, either k-12 or vocational training. and we see that the likelihood that a young man is going to finish college is actually lower today than it would have been 15 years ago. tom: very quickly, is this a plutocracy? is that what we are heading for? i don't mean to pick on mr. trump, or it is like wilbur ross, secretary of commerce, someone that you and i know quite well. but in a broader sense over the last decade or two decades, is it a plutocracy or gilded age that we need to fear? abby: clearly, when you look at the employment data, the family income data, people who are well educated, people who live in urban areas by and large have done far better. so the question for us in 2017 is, what will the policy direction be? will the policies be favorable towards middle income people, including perhaps increases in the minimum wage?
♪ tom: "bloomberg surveillance," and our "bloomberg surveillance" year ahead special. i am tom keene from our world headquarters in new york. we are honored that you are with us, worldwide with us for this abby joseph cohen, goldman sachs hour. senior investment strategist. we went under intense negotiation for me to do this one-hour special. and i said, ok we can do it, but , for one section of this special, i have to go along with abby joseph cohen. so we are doing that right now on the cfa institute.
graham dodd was basically an -- railroad industrial book where you took the net income statement down to the bottom and you looked at gap earnings. the world's changed. where are we going to be one year from now or five years from now on how we do security analysis on the income statement? abby: fabulous question, tom, but i want to broaden it out. tom: please. abby: and number one, if we had had this conversation a decade ago, we would have been talking about an accounting system in the united states that more closely paralleled the international accounting statements. that is not happening. number one. number two, we are seeing from an investment analysis standpoint that a lot of our work is getting a little bit muddled because of the use of cash. in 1999 and 2000, 70% of the cash for companies in the s&p 500 went back into the company for things involving growth,
capital -- tom: how odd, invest in the future. abby: absolutely. capital spending, r&d, even cash acquisitions for operations. tom: where is that 70% number now? abby: it is now 42%. tom: yeah. abby: and it says something that so much of the cash is going for things like share repurchase. and this is an important question because one of the major policy initiatives that we are hearing about may very well be this important corporate tax reform, and a piece of that could be the repatriation of profits that u.s. companies now have overseas. if that money comes in, and there are no restrictions in terms of how that money is used, one of the things i worry about is that a good deal will go for share repurchase, which is great because on the one hand, it narrows the number of shares for which those earnings can be divided. on the other hand, if the money goes into things like share
repurchase alone or dividend increases and so on and not into growth, the benefit to the nation will not be there. tom: are you optimistic that the legislative body of mr. trump's administration, the senate, and -- administration, the senate and the house, can provide the guidelines so that apple computer, or a mid-cap stock that you and i don't know the name of, will allocate to invest, to create jobs? abby: before the election, there were bipartisan conversations, democrats and republicans, all all acknowledging the need for some form of corporate tax reform. and when it came to the discussion of repatriation, democrats and republicans were talking about using that money to fund infrastructure, to fund job creation, and in some instances, putting limitations on how the cash could be used at the corporate level. in 2017, when we see the actual language of the legislation, we will be able to judge better.
at this point, quite frankly, my crystal ball is very foggy. tom: very quickly, the top line of the income statement. do you just assume a better america, a better nominal gdp, a better revenue growth for next year? abby: yes, we do. gdp growth in the united states likely up 2.2%, something along those lines. that, by the way, is the consensus forecast. if we look for ways in which that number could be wrong, it is probably more likely to be stronger rather than weaker, in part because the economy is ending 2016 on an accelerating note. tom: very good. abby joseph cohen with us. really, really pleased that you are with us. we have got so many topics we have spoken on through this hour. i really want to end, look back on some important books from last year that questioned the future of america, and of course as we move to the inauguration and on to a new 2017. abby joseph cohen, her optimism on america. american exceptionalism.
tom: "bloomberg surveillance," our year ahead special. really want to throw thanks to our team for putting this together. we knew it would be a joy with abby joseph cohen. she is with goldman sachs, their senior investment strategist. but i said, ok, this is great, we will talk about investments. we will do economics, we will talk the fed, the ecb. i want to talk to abby joseph cohen about where this nation is going, and for that matter, the -- old in -- fold in the world economy as well. abby joseph cohen on american exceptionalism. the book last year, robert gordon, northwestern university, we did it in the 20th century, maybe we are not going to do it now. i had a wonderful conversation with professor gordon where we nuanced that discussion. are we reliving the glory days from previous times? abby: we have not been keeping up our end of the bargain in my view. the glory days had to do with a dramatic increase in educational attainment, not just for the elite of the nation, but for everyone.
there were also substantial investments made, not just by corporations, but also by the federal government. during those glory days, 1950's, 1960's, 4.5% of u.s. gdp was in the form of r&d, a good deal of that coming from the federal government. we are now down to 2.5%, which puts us in the middle of the oecd pack instead of being far out in front as we are -- tom: the middle of the pack is not exceptionalism, is it? abby: not at all, particularly since we could be doing much better. tom: within this is the idea of jumpstarting us to something new. where does it come from? does it come from government policy? or does it come from crisis? abby: what we have to understand is that crisis in the united states often pushes us in the right direction, not just in terms of the corporate response, but also the government response. and one of the things that has been disappointing, i think, has
been that, as a nation, we have not made the investments in the future that we have seen in the past. infrastructure spending, of course, is something that has bipartisan support. would it have been better to do have done it during the worst part of the financial crisis, yes, when unemployment was higher? but that is not a reason not to do it now. what we have to recognize though is that some of the discussions about infrastructure are talking about it being privately financed. and that is not what long-term, public investment is about. the government, when we go back, and we look at centuries of analysis, the government contributes most spending on things where there is no profit motive. those really big projects where there may not be a revenue at the end of the day, whether it was eisenhower's highway system, whether it was the space program and so on, that is how the united states establishes itself.
tom: help me with the dollar. we haven't talked about the u.s. dollar. i think of barry eichengreen of hisuniversity, is -- wonderful small book, important book a few years ago, "exorbitant privilege." that is our exorbitant privilege, and is part of american exceptionalism. where is the dollar as the standard of the american economy 2017 and onward? are we really at risk? i don't buy it. joseph nye does not buy it, i know that. abby: the united states' dollar is the world's reserve currency and will remain, the dollar, the world's reserve currency. but let's keep in mind that china has already stepped up to become an increasingly important regional reserve currency in asia. a few years back, 40% of all trade in asia was done in the form of dollars, even though the united states was only 10% of that trade. china has moved in. but let's keep in mind the following. over the last three years, the trade-weighted dollar has risen
about 25% or 30%. while we feel good that it says something about the u.s. being strong, it also is an impediment to economic growth. the single fastest growing sector of the u.s. economy has been exports in the last decade. but with our cost up 25% to 30%, that makes it much more difficult for exports to grow. tom: help me then with the dollar dynamics and this concept of american exceptionalism or a good capitalism, if you will, in what we have witnessed in the campaign, tpp down in flames, both candidates, and the idea of a new isolationist, zero sum, neo-mercantile america. is that a genuine fear for abby joseph cohen? abby: it is a concern for me. and history would bear out that those sorts of models don't work except in the very short term. intermediate to long-term, they harm not just the country imposing those policies, but it tends to hurt world trade as
well, particularly for such a large economy like that of the united states. tom: do we have a fear that china, or someone else for that matter, takes the vacuum of our, not isolationism, but our reticence to move abroad now? is there a fear that china takes -- comes right in and takes our place? abby: i think we are already seeing the signs that china is very anxious to become even more important on the world stage both economically and politically. and we see it most clearly among their specific trade partners in asia, but also in latin america. keep in mind that tpp was designed to help pacific rim trade partners in the americas and asia but did not include china. and the idea was to create a trade alliance among nations that did not include china. tom: i want to sum up here, and you've mentioned this, and i have heard mr. blank mentioned this about goldman sachs as a
technology company. i think of what jeff immelt is doing with the internet over at general electric. one of the hallmark moments of december was the passing of john glenn. you and i both grew up in space families, if you will. i was up in rochester with eastman kodak, and you are among -- were among the grumman people of long island. here was the icon of a generation truly, and it meant fearless innovation, testing, and i mean this with the immense respect for all risks taken. have we lost the risk, the fear, the risk to take as a nation? abby: i fear, as a nation, we have lost a great deal of that. consider for example that many of the large expenses by the government going back to the early portion of the 19th century had to do with funding research that may or may not pan out, the basic research and so on. we don't do that in the same extent -- tom: we don't fail like we used to. abby: we are not willing to fail. it is a great way to express it.
because it is only the government that can find that -- fund that kind of thing. when i say government, i am referring to government everywhere, not just the u.s. government. and so by not providing that basic research, not providing the capital, and, by the way, not providing sufficient encouragement for our young people to become scientists and to really explore the facts and the data out there in the natural world, we put ourselves at an enormous disadvantage. tom: my book of the year is ken rogoff's "the curse of cash." it is a wildly courageous book. he has been roundly criticized for it. india, with their own experiment, professor rogoff has been critical on how india has tactically imposed this reduction of cash. and i know it folds into negative interests and all that. abby joseph cohen, on our future with cash. are we going to be a cashless society? abby: not anytime soon. what we are seeing is a reluctance on the part of many
people to give up their cash. and one of the issues now is not the theory behind going cashless, it is the reality of cyber security. people's worry about loss of their information, whether it is financial or other personal information. and i think that while we have seen a reduction in the use of currency in the united states, our currency, our large denominations, are used heavily in places like russia. tom: i look at all of this and the mixture of the international relations and finance investment and economics, and i guess i have to come back to one of the clarion moments of last year. i was deeply moved standing on the streets the morning after and the evening of june 24 in london. it was maybe my emotion of the year, was brexit and the shock of london over what has occurred. when you talk to your team at
goldman sachs, and you do your own thinking on what prime minister may will do in 2017, what is your view on how the united kingdom will relate to europe and to america? abby: here, too, we do not quite know what will happen. the british government has not yet made the decisions on how to -- about how to move forward under rule 50 and so on, but let's talk a little bit about what led to that brexit vote. and what we have seen in the u.k., which is very similar to the pattern here on november 8, is a very big difference by region within the country, and also rural versus urban, or in this case, in brexit, urban, successful urban versus not successful urban. tom: a bimodal united kingdom. abby: absolutely. and so places that voted very heavily to leave the european union tend to be those areas where there has been a big loss of industrial jobs, even though in those regions, the
individuals are big beneficiaries of transfer payments from the e.u. think of the contrast to the united states where many of the counties in the u.s. that are economically depressed, people are looking for a change. they are looking for a different approach. many of these areas were also beneficiaries of notable transfer payments from our federal government. so one question is, have people voted against their self interest, number one? and number two, in the u.k. and the u.s. alike, what will the new policies look like? will the new governments be able to provide those middle income and lower middle income families who are feeling enormous economic pressure, will they be able to relieve that pressure in a positive way? tom: that at least gets us to 2018. maybe you and i will do this next year. thanks to abby joseph cohen of goldman sachs, their senior investment strategist. this has been hugely productive as we go to 2017. we thank you for listening
♪ carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek". i am carol massar. oliver: i am oliver renick. we are coming to you from inside the magazine's headquarters in new york. russia reasserts its military power in the middle east. and another disappointing sign in a disputed south china sea. oliver: all that is ahead on "bloomberg businessweek". ♪ carol: we are here with the editor in chief megan murphy of business week. in the